A research brief from the Center for Retirement Research atBoston College finds that a measure intended to help older workersfind work—especially in smaller firms—wasn’t much help.

Related: Do higher income workers prefer higherdeductibles?

Limiting the premiums insurers could charge for health insuranceon workers in smaller firms, a provision put forth by most statesduring the 1990s, was intended to benefit both workers andfirms—the former, in being able to find employment and at betterpay; the latter, in not being hit with more expensive healthinsurance premiums across the board for their employees.

However, the study finds, while there was some improvement in thepay provided by small employers to older workers, there was noincrease in employment at all.

Related: 5 worst states for group healthinsurance

Prior to the health insurance reforms that restricted “how muchemployer-sponsored health insurance premiums can vary across smallfirms based on the characteristics of their workers,” the studysays, “a small firm that hired even one additional older worker ranthe risk of higher premiums for all of its workers.”

And with the increasing need for older workers to continue tostay on the job to augment slim retirement savings—particularlyamong those who are “less-educated … who often hold middle-skilljobs that are at greater risk of disappearing,” the measure wasintended to increase their prospects of finding, and keeping,work.

Smaller firms were at a particular disadvantage prior to thereforms, since if insurers could charge more for older workers asmall firm would have far fewer employees among whom to spread thecost. If older workers were hired, that made it more expensive foreveryone.

According to the study, “By reducing the cost of providing health insurance for olderworkers, the premium restrictions were expected to increase theiremployment at the small firms affected by the law.

In addition, the restrictions were also expected to increaseolder workers’ earnings at small firms, because lower healthpremiums could allow employers to pass on the savings to workers inthe form of higher wages.” The restrictions weren’t expected tohave either effect at larger firms, whose premiums weren’taffected.

But while there was some improvement in pay for older workers atsmaller firms—particularly in states with the strongest premiumrestrictions—there was no effect on employment for olderworkers.

In addition, the study finds, “contrary to expectations, olderworkers do not appear to benefit much more than prime-age workers”when it comes to pay. Also, “high school dropouts actually saw theearnings gap between large- and small-firm workers increase.”

The study concludes that “policymakers may want to considertrying more direct measures, perhaps by eliminating payroll taxesfor older workers and their employers.”